|Feature Article - February 2020|
|by JK Bell|
A science teacher weighs in on the subject.
Just a small intro of myself (JK Bell): I have taught chemistry in the public schools for 35 years. I have been a creationist for as long as I can remember. I have always rejected evolution, even when it was presented to me by my favorite teachers from grade school to college. I have read all the articles from “Science Against Evolution” and have followed the website almost from its conception. While I don’t teach my religious beliefs in my classroom, I have, nonetheless, used the scientific concepts outlined in this web site in discussions with my colleagues.
What I have noticed about almost all science teachers is they do not understand the basics of science. They are confused about the difference between a law and a theory. While every science teacher can give examples of scientific theories and laws, they all have a vague understanding as how they relate to each other.
Almost all science teachers believe and teach the Scientific Method in this manner:
First, there is an observation. Then there is a theory proposed about the observation. If that theory is proven correct by countless experiments, it is accepted as a law.
Of course, before it became a theory, it had to spend a few weeks as a lowly hypothesis!
That’s simply not true. A good example of how a theory becomes accepted is to consider the Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gasses.
Now, this is admittedly simplified, but all the gas laws discovered by Boyle, Gay Lussac, Charles and Dalton can all be explained by one theory called KMT. It does so by assuming the molecules of the gas are in constant motion hitting the walls of the container. This effectively explains their observations and the individual gas laws.
Now the point is this: The gas laws never were theories and the Kinetic Molecular theory never will become a law. We don’t see Robert Boyle eagerly awaiting the scientific community elevating PV=k from a theory to a law.
Now the question of the day: Do I teach the Kinetic Molecular Theory as a fact? Yes, I do! That’s because it is true.
The funny thing is the gas “laws” aren’t really true. The gas laws only work if the gas is “IDEAL” which means the gas particles don’t have molecular attraction or molecular volume. However, all “real” gases have volumes and attractions making the laws just approximations. Amazingly, the law works perfectly for gasses that do not exist!
Now how does this all relate to evolution and whether or not there is truth in the realm of science?
The gas law PV=k is useful even though it isn’t perfect. In most cases it is 99% correct. More importantly, its failure helps us understand the true nature of gas molecules. The development of PV=k led to the KM theory which is used in many aspects of science.
This isn’t the case with evolution. We all know the shortcomings and limitations of “survival of the fittest” but pointing them out puts your job at risk. That’s because evolution is not a science. It’s a religion. People just don’t want to hear attacks on their religion.
Evolutionists have put themselves in a box in which they feel comfortable. There they can answer any and all questions about origins. Yes, they are confined in the box, but they feel safe, too, because being in the box requires following rules—rules that help them to think properly. “Thinking inside the box” as they might call it. They even have a name for the box. They call it (among other names) “Survival of the Fittest”.
Like evolutionists, the chemistry student is also in a box. A box I call “The Kinetic Molecular Theory”. The chemistry box also offers safety by offering a set of rules. One of the rules (if the student is to explain an observable fact) is the student must state that molecules are always moving. Using these rules, the student can easily answer questions as varied as, “Why does warm water evaporate faster than cold water?” to “What causes clouds to form in the sky?”
All of us are confined in a box when we answer questions, and we look at each other as weird if a person dares to think outside the box. For example, when an unknown set of lights appear over a city, we are not allowed to say the lights are from space visitors—at least, not without being accused of being a psycho. There is a narrow set of explanations allowed. Typical explanations include a weather balloon, a reflection or ball lightning. That’s because we know flying saucers don’t exist.
Likewise, if parents ask their teenage son how a beer can got in the backyard, they will only accept a narrow set of explanations. The teenager is not allowed to say the beer can formed itself out of the ground because that is impossible. It’s remotely possible the can fell out of a passing airplane but that explanation would be dismissed because of its statistical improbability. Confronted with this kind of evidence, the teen might confess that indeed a party had occurred while the parents were at a movie.
When evolutionists are asked difficult questions such as, “Where did the circulation system come from?” they are not allowed to say it had anything to do with a deity of any sort because that explanation is not allowed in the box. Unbelievably, they are allowed to say space aliens did it based on the theory called, “panspermia.” The hardcore evolutionists might resort to the, “It formed itself out of the ground!” argument rejected by parents everywhere. More likely they will say that science has not yet answered everything, but an explanation is pending even though they privately know it isn’t.
If evolutionists confessed that a heart forming at the same time as blood and arteries and other blood vessels is not just highly improbable, it is IMPOSSIBLE, their gig is up. They are kicked out of the box. They are classified as weirdoes. This is why Evolutionists Refuse to Admit They’re Wrong.
|Quick links to|
|Science Against Evolution
|Back issues of
of the Month